Ann Rempel

I, too, am wondering why I could open something called Pages, but then found I do not have access to the mysterious Pages.

11 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It should be noted that the last portion of the conversation in this thread went off on a bit of a tangent by discussing withdrawal of a nomination by the member who made the nomination, and not by the nominee. As previously noted, I agree that a nomination cannot be "withdrawn" by the person nominated (unless he nominated himself).

Who is doing the withdrawing in the quotation from p. 435? (if one of the nominees withdraws before the election, …)  

And if your organization is incorporated, check the applicable statutes for the requirements of votes taken without a meeting being held.

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

The person, in this case, may not be holding office, but clearly has been "elected to" office.  Based on that, disciplinary action could be applied to people elected to, but not yet holding, office.  That would be enough to show that someone elected to, but not yet holding, office may be removed as per Chapter XX.

I do have a problem with calling it the "position" or "office,"  because those things would need to be expressed in bylaws and standing rules.  The difference is one of vocabulary.

I agree that a person elected to, but not yet holding the office may be removed. 

I have no problem, though, calling it an "office-elect" since that is common sense language to describe the situation. Or maybe it should be "office-in-limbo." Anyway, Dan's office-elect interpretation didn't bother me at all and I thought it very sensible.

Answering questions of the assembly may depend on the terms of the parliamentarian's contract with the organization. If the parliamentarian in these questions is a "member parliamentarian," then that's a different matter. 

On ‎4‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 1:34 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Actually we don't have very many policemen, firemen, or mailmen any more.  We have police officers, firefighters, and letter carriers.

But my letter carrier never brings letters these days. USPS may need to change the terminology. I call officers and leaders of committees by whatever title is bestowed on them by the bylaws.

17 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Yeah, he probably wasn't our best salesman but he was surely the most colorful (and charged the lowest commission).

And he is missed.

We are indeed fortunate to have known him.

I agree with Richard Brown -- one-time privilege.

6 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

The key is to be found on Page 336, which cites "the basic principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session...." [emphasis added] That is the principle which underlies the prohibition on Page 140. Thus, it is in order to move to strike out words which were inserted in a previous session.

This is good common sense in my opinion. Parliamentary procedure enables the assembly to conduct its business, and it is not intended to impede the will of the assembly or trample on rights of members. I think Mr. H has clarified the issue for me and his solution makes good sense.

Why not reconsider the vote on the amendment?

There is a more recent copyright, though, than 1923.

Are we positive or negative about this?

14 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, what makes more sense to me is to understand that motions to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous are not inherently improper.

Agreed! 

I really like Tim's Alternate Reality! Sure makes sense to me.

A budget should be adopted by the body that has authority to do so. Check your bylaws to see who has the authority.

A monthly financial report would not be adopted -- only the auditor's report is adopted.

At the NAP Convention, delegates were allowed to submit motions in advance by text message and by email. In fact, that system was encouraged. When the motion was moved later, the motion was ready for projection onto a screen. I sent one motion by text message from my cell phone and thought it less efficient (actually slower) than writing my motion on the usual pre-numbered motion form. Typing on the small screen is difficult unless one has the nimble thumbs of a teenager. Also, there was insufficient room on tables in the delegate seating area to include laptops in addition to RONR and papers that were needed in the meeting -- not to mention the hand-held electronic voting devices, which sometimes failed to work properly.

I will leave it to others to explain how the system worked at the head table, motion table, etc. 

12 hours ago, J. J. said:

I will disagree a bit.  While a member may ask permission to withdraw a main motion he made, after that main motion has been amended, he cannot speak against it (p. 393, ll. 23-26).  This would be true even if the main motion is amended is such a way to change the intent of the motion, e.g., to strike out "censure" and insert "commend."

The member may speak against the amendment, when it is pending, and could even indicate that, if the amendment is adopted, he would vote against the main motion.  He could move to suspend the rules to permit him to speak against the main motion, after it is amended.

I fail to see the logic in this argument. After a motion is amended, it is no longer the motion proposed by the maker. Seems to me that it is every member's right to speak against the amended main motion so long as he or she isn't the member who moved the amendment. I have always thought that logic prevails in the General's writings and continues in RONR. 

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:17 PM, George Mervosh said:

RONR doesn't say but I think the answer to your question is, no.  I think saying the meeting was held by teleconference is fine.  Not that NAP always does everything right, but if you peruse the board meeting minutes history you'll see they simply mention the meeting was held using the technology that was used for that particular meeting.  I think that's adequate.    http://www.parliamentarians.org/documents/board-minutes/  

The NAP Secretary began using that language at the suggestion of the parliamentarian when the board started using the technology for meetings. The NAP parliamentarian at that time was Burke Balch and I was the secretary who asked his advice. He always gave me good advice.  

16 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Just a note to let you all know that what I had previously announced as my retirement from the authorship team has proven to be just a vacation, which has now come to an end.

Hooray!!!!

49 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

"I suspect that rule is breached more often than it is honored in most ordinary small assemblies and boards. It bothers me when important information is kept out of the minutes or records simply because the report which contained it was verbal rather than in writing.

Nonetheless, what goes in the minutes is ultimately up to the assembly itself and I believe most societies would want that information included. The assembly has the final word, regardless of whether the RONR authorship team thinks something should not be included.

Yes, but I've found those guys to be pretty good thinkers and they "know their stuff"! I continue to find them quite helpful. 

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 1:36 PM, Gary c Tesser said:

 

You're all so awesomely patient and excruciatingly respectful.

 

I got to go take today's furosamide.

I think I need one, too. 

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

I don't disagree.  However, no one can point to a section of those bylaws that says, in so many words, that proxy voting is prohibited.  Proxy voting cannot be used because RONR specifically states that the bylaws must authorize proxy voting (p. 428, l. 30-35). 

 

If something must be authorized and is not authorized, then it is prohibited. According to RONR, proxy voting is prohibited if it isn't authorized.

If the bylaws are silent about proxy voting and RONR is the parliamentary authority, proxy voting is prohibited (unless authorized by statute, of course). The Sample Bylaws state that RONR is the parliamentary authority. Therefore, no proxy voting. Period.

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

Perhaps this will help you understand the  question.  If you were to ask me where, in the same sample bylaws, that it says proxy voting is prohibited, I would say that there is no place in those bylaws that says proxy voting is prohibited.  That does not mean that I think proxy voting is, or could be, permitted (unless required by statute).         It is simply that the express wording does not exist. 

 

But the Sample Bylaws Article VIII states that RONR is the parliamentary authority. Therefore, proxy voting is not permitted unless the bylaws or statute require it. The express wording does exist.